| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Kingsland: Now, with a degree of confidence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131ZB to 131ZD not moved.]
Schedule 22 [Procedure for appeals under section 144]:
[Amendments Nos. 131ZE and 131ZF not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 131ZG:
- Page 235, line 42, leave out "and"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 131ZG and 131ZH seek to correct some minor inconsistencies in Schedule 22. We are grateful to Energywatch for having alerted us to this. At present the category of persons who are required to be informed of an original application to appeal, and those who are required to be informed of a decision by the Competition
Commission as to whether or not to grant leave, are differently expressed. These two amendments simply bring those two in line.Amendment No. 131ZJ, the third amendment in this group, also seeks to correct an additional inconsistency in the appeals provisions. In the Bill as drafted, Ofgem is given a right to override a decision by the Competition Commission to "stop the clock" while an appeal proceeds if it would impact on security of supply. However, our intention is to exclude from the whole appeal procedure—for which we will use the secondary order provisions in Clause 144—decisions which relate to security of supply or become so during the course of the appeal. Therefore, this provision is redundant, and the amendment will remove it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 131ZH and 131ZJ:
- Page 235, line 43, at end insert "; and
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 131A not moved.]
Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 146 [Determination of appeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 131B to 132 not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 132ZA:
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose: I understand that Amendment No. 132ZA is about the meaning of a high voltage line. Is the provision intended to bring the Scottish 132 kilovolt lines into the Transco network? Is this the clause that will allow Transco to take over the Scottish 132 kilovolt lines?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understood that this amendment had already been debated. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. However, if it has already been debated, then I do not think that the noble Duke is in order.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I beg to differ. We are told that anyone can speak to any amendment on the Marshalled List. My noble friend asked a question and it is one that I should like to ask, too. We must be absolutely clear about what happens in this matter. I want to be clear about it because those of us who are not professionals in the electricity industry—I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is one either—find it difficult to follow what the Government are doing in relation to the proposals that we have heard from various parts of the industry. Can the Minister confirm that here the various categories of lines are being brought into line and that the 132-kilovolt lines can be counted as transmission? Does that apply all over the country and does it meet the submission made by the Scottish generators?
Lord Whitty: It is difficult to relate this matter to the part of the Bill to which it refers, but we are dealing with offshore transmissions here. As the noble Baroness knows, there is a difference between the voltage in Scotland and that in England and Wales. Without referring to the original text of the Bill, the amendment defines the somewhat different situation in Scotland.
The Duke of Montrose: Perhaps the Minister could write to me about that matter. With regard to the high voltage lines, the amendment states,
Lord Whitty: I had better undertake to write to the noble Duke.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 132A:
The noble Lord said: I hope not to take too long in moving this amendment, but the Minister will recognise that some history relates to this issue. The methane that escapes into the atmosphere from abandoned mines as a result of what I believe is now recognised as microbial degradation seeps up through faults and cracks in the earth and poisons the atmosphere. The question is whether that gas should receive the special treatment awarded to other forms of methane escape—for example, in landfill—and qualify for support through the renewables obligation.
I believe one has to start from the proposition that coal mine methane is a hazardous waste gas. It is possible to exemplify that by reminding noble Lords that it is not so long since a small town in Derbyshire—Arkwright Town—had to be demolished because it had become uninhabitable as a result of coal mine methane escaping into the surrounding atmosphere. It is also recognised as hazardous because housing in many areas—in particular, in mining areas—is still blighted by coal mine methane. That issue must be dealt with. If one compares it with, for example, the fuss that was made some years ago about the problem of radon in ordinary dwellings—I suspect that that was many, many times less hazardous than the methane which escapes into the atmosphere from abandoned mines—I believe one can make a case for saying that it must be dealt with.
In addition, dealing with coal mine methane would be entirely in accordance with the Government's overall environmental objectives. Such methane has what I might call a "global warming potential" 23 times greater than carbon dioxide. That has been well established and is not challenged by anybody. Therefore, if this waste gas can be captured and used for generation, it cuts its global warming potential—its GWP—by more than 100 per cent. It saves nine times more CO 2 e equivalent per kilowatt hour than is generated by wind power. I shall come back to that point in a few minutes.
Coal mine methane is therefore a clean, strategic source of energy with the potential to contribute perhaps up to 450 megawatts of generation capacity by 2010, the equivalent of hundreds of large wind turbines.
In this country, investment in capturing and using coal mine methane is virtually on hold. In contrast, the German Government fully support this new carbon mitigation technology and the industry there is now booming. There is investment; it is expanding; the methane is being captured; and more than 120 megawatts of power is now already in store there, using CMM.
An extension of the renewables obligation from 10.4 per cent to 11.4 per cent would help the Government to meet their target and help a struggling industry which was, at one time, recognised by Ministers as a viable infant industry. It is the sort of industry we ought to be dealing with to establish our position here and to deal with a very real problem.
Over the past two or three years, this case has been made to many noble Lords and Members of another place by the very active body, the Association of Coal
We went to see Ministers at the DTI—Brian Wilson was then the Minister for Energy. We went to see Ministers at the Department of the Environment—in particular, Michael Meacher. Neither of those Ministers are still in that position. I eventually went to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—pulling rank, in a sense, because it was a job which I held about 20 years ago—and Paul Boateng was very kind in seeing me.
All those Ministers had one thing in common—they expressed a very keen desire to help. They appeared to recognise the strength of our case and each, in respect of their own responsibilities, was concerned to make it clear to them and, in some cases, to their officials, that this needed to be done. Indeed, when we went to see Michael Meacher and said that coal mine methane ought to be brought within the emissions trading scheme, he apologised to us that it was even necessary for us to come and make that case. However, nothing has happened, with the exception of the Treasury agreeing to exempt coal mine methane from the climate change levy. As I put it at a meeting of the ACCMO a little later, that was one down and two to go. There is no proper incentive to develop coal mine methane such as the renewables obligations will provide, and there is as yet no access for coal mine methane operators to any of the emissions trading schemes.
This really is a disgraceful state of affairs. It is also completely illogical. My right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer established the regime for landfill gas—that is, methane. The landfill arrangements—the tax and all the other arrangements that go with it—are now an integral part of the public arrangements for dealing with energy and escaping gas. That is something which needed to be built on. But when we pointed out on the Floor of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who at that stage was still answering questions about energy, which at the moment he does not seem to do—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will remember this—that the Germans had had no difficulty in extending their renewables obligation to coal mine methane, he said that we would not be so stupid, thereby both disappointing everyone in the House and insulting the Germans.
It was an extraordinary decision that something which another member of the Community felt perfectly able to do was apparently impossible for us to do. It is completely illogical that methane captured from landfill sites and sewage farms was included in
Another point, which I think the Chief Secretary recognised when I met him, is that an increased renewables obligation would cost the Treasury nothing and add less than 0.6 per cent to consumers' electricity bills by 2010. Contrast that with the position of methane captured from working collieries. This was given a £21 million subsidy in the UK emissions trading scheme incentives auction. For some reason, coal mine methane from abandoned mines was excluded by the department of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
At the draft stage of the DTI independent consultants' study into support for CMM, the conclusion was that including this waste gas in the renewables obligation was the best method. I understand that when the report comes to be published, that recommendation from the independent consultants is due to be excised.
The inclusion of CMM in an increased renewables obligation is supported by the Renewable Power Association, the Welsh Assembly, several of the regional development agencies and, as I said, a cross-party coalition of noble Lords and Members of another place.
Three years ago in 2001, the British industry in this area was well ahead of the Germans. It has now fallen behind and is stagnating. One has to ask, is this yet another case of British technology with a world-wide lead being overtaken by overseas competitors because of a lack of support by officialdom in this country?
I think there is an overwhelming case that coal mine methane should benefit from the renewables obligation. I am tempted to guess why it is that Ministers can express such huge support for this proposition when we go to see them but still fail to do anything about it. I believe the reason is that they see—as with combined heat and power, which is another similar example—it as impinging on their targets for wind energy. Noble Lords may not have had the chance to read the recent report that I believe was published just before the weekend on renewable energy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will have seen it. The report states just how difficult it will be for the Government to achieve their renewable energy targets, not just by 2010 but by 2015 and beyond. It also talked about the innumerable steps that now need to be taken if those targets are going to be met. I can well understand the attraction of an argument put to Ministers—
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.6 p.m. to 5.16 p.m.]
(c) to each person who was sent a copy of the application in accordance with sub-paragraph (7)."
Page 237, line 29, leave out sub-paragraphs (6) to (9).
After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
"MEANING OF "HIGH VOLTAGE LINE"
(1) In subsection (1) of section 64 of the 1989 Act (interpretation of Part 1), for the definitions of "high voltage line" and "low voltage line" substitute—
"'high voltage line' means an electric line which—
(a) if it is in Scotland or is a relevant offshore line (as defined in subsection (1A)), is of a nominal voltage of 132 kilovolts or more; and
(b) in any other case, is of a nominal voltage of more than 132 kilovolts, and 'low voltage line' shall be construed accordingly;".
(2) After that subsection insert—
"(1A) An electric line is a relevant offshore line for the purposes of the definition in subsection (1) of 'high voltage line' if—
(a) it is in an area of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom or an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964; and
(b) it is used—
(i) to convey electricity to a place in Scotland; or
(ii) to convey, to any other place, electricity generated by a generating station that is situated in an area mentioned in paragraph (a).""
"if it is in Scotland or is a relevant offshore line".
Therefore, it seems to apply to both.
After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF RENEWABLES OBLIGATION TO COAL MINE METHANE
For the definition of "renewable sources" in section 32(8) of the 1989 Act, substitute—
""renewable sources" means sources of energy other than fossil fuel or nuclear fuel, but includes—
(a) waste of which not more than a specified proportion is waste which is, or is derived from, fossil fuel; and
(b) coal mine methane;
"coal mine methane" means methane vented from abandoned coal mines"."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page